Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:23:10 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects |
| |
* Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> I think the reason vbus gets better performance for networking today >>> is that vbus' backends are in the kernel while virtio's backends are >>> currently in userspace. Since Michael has a functioning in-kernel >>> backend for virtio-net now, I suspect we're weeks (maybe days) away >>> from performance results. My expectation is that vhost + virtio-net >>> will be as good as venet + vbus. If that's the case, then I don't >>> see any reason to adopt vbus unless Greg things there are other >>> compelling features over virtio. >>> >> >> Keeping virtio's backend in user-space was rather stupid IMHO. > > I don't think it's quite so clear.
in such a narrow quote it's not so clear indeed - that's why i qualified it with:
>> Having the _option_ to piggyback to user-space (for flexibility, >> extensibility, etc.) is OK, but not having kernel acceleration is >> bad.
Ingo
| |